But that's the effect of the turn to the market 'solution' to the market problem: a) what happens in a situation of 'hot air' for sale, though, is that what seems like a 'ceiling' in reality becomes a floor (given that purchase of Russia's pollution rights is a big part of the coming market), so it is a genuine worry that the carbon trading process will lead to upward pressure on CO2 emissions, not downward; b) evasion is the best way to describe the scam called 'additionality', which is the way many of these carbon reduction projects are being financed even though the science and economics are being gamed; c) grandfathering pollution is the entire basis of the trading regime, in which property rights to pollute are parcelled out to those already polluting.
> It's also not exactly true that investors don't care. There's a lot
> of venture capital money going into alt.energy, and there's a new
> coalition of institutional investors <http://www.ceres.org> pushing
> for strong action by Washington to impose carbon limits. The Ceres
> stuff is too mild for what's needed, but again, they're not looking
> for excuses to prolong business as usual.
Check the impacts on the ground (e.g. through the Dag Hammarskjold Fnd book compiled by Larry Lohmann that covers the world). The best South African pilot for alternative/renewable energy investments has already won a 'gold standard' rating (it's solar panels and insulation for townships houses), but as you see in the 'script of our new book, it's still financially non-viable. Much more serious state subsidies are needed, and the private investors are picking low-hanging fruits which are the most profitable, which in turn leaves a set of lemon-socialist projects for states to finance, and hence getting good funds for good projects is a progressively more difficult challenge
> Do you object to carbon taxes?
No, if the price elasticity is high enough to actually get meaningful
reductions. My gut feel is that severe luxury taxes and penalties on
hedonistic fossil fuel consumption - including by corporations (but also
including my own flying around) - are going to be crucial. Their
application will depend upon power relations. The more of a carbon
market there is, the stronger the investors, and the less likely it is
we get a carbon tax or mandatory reduction requirements.
> I don't see much in the book ms. you
> sent me about them. They're a market-based policy,
Not if they're done properly; then they distort the market by injecting an ecological and social rationality. Gar Lipow has a good handle on them, so do check out his various writings e.g. on Grist.
...
> [CLIP some Stern]
> It's easy for a bunch of high-minded economists - representing the
> most humane and thoughtful wing of the ruling class - to say things
> like that in a report. What happens in the real world of politics is
> a completely different thing. But folks on our side of the spectrum
> should at least characterize the thinking of the liberal bourgeoisie
> accurately.
>
And I showed your reply to Michael Dorsey, and here's his reply:
Doug, the Stern Gang is NOT looking for anything, especially not keeping polluting at current levels forever, BUT firms are. And both are part of the problem. Why is this NOT obvious? I don't understand.
First Firms, then Stern Gang,
US-CAP says very EXPLICITLY what they want, as found in my forthcoming CNS June 2007 paper: "US-CAP, which stands for U.S. Climate Action Partnership, called for a reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 100-105 percent of present levels over the next five years; and to 90-100 percent of present levels within ten years. The US-CAP Manifesto thus binds its inaugural members (as well as subsequent followers)—“market leaders” like: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources, along with four “leading” non-governmental organizations: Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sunoco-funded Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute—to increase CO2 over the next five years and provides them a tacit license to do nothing for ten more years thereafter! Few newspapers that announced the “CAP” have commented on this presumably minor detail." So actually firms want BEYOND BAU--Business As Usual, i.e., they want to pollute MORE.
So then Stern... very soon, some video will emerge from colleagues at Erasmus who taped Stern speaking into a camera, saying basically, (paraphrasing) 'Don't tell me about the problems of trading. I dont want to hear anything about that' . So Stern is not about increasing per se, he is about something MORE DANGEROUS, especially as an architect cum regulator. Stern Gang is about parading around in no clothes. They dont want to hear about the scams they have build a "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" air conditioned room around themselves in the middle of the hottest reaches of hell.
Why are such "operation-blinders" a BIG problem? Such running blind (i.e., "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil") is bad because it confuses the best of the best, like Doug Henwood into thinking that this system will work or worse is working, when it is NOT, and is doomed to failure. CO2 is NOT coming down. It's RISING.
On the idea that "they're not looking for excuses to prolong business as usual." This is true--but it's worse, not good. To repeat some firms are NOT LOOKING but some are saying loud and clear: we will do WORSE than business as usual. The attached graph underscores this point for the a few (not all) of 5 bills sitting in various stages of draft in the House & Senate. And GUESS WHO'S BILL is MISSING: "The WILDCARD" (that's what they were calling it on the Hill just yesterday when i was down there): Dingell's, i.e., MR BIG-THREE-AUTOMAN! And you can bet his will not be in the visionary camp.
Now all of this says NOTHING about the the North-South injustice issues.
The last thing we really need is DH doing acrobatics to prop-up these jokers. Such a waste of a talented mind. We need him poring over the data like this: http://www.cd4cdm.org/Publications/CDMpipeline.xls ...to come out with information similar to the Nature paper that exposed the HFC fraud. NO BODY IS DOING THIS, AND TOO MANY ARE rhetoric dropping, in the face of readily available evidence of malfeasance, fraud, and mismanagement. Additionally what we really need from the DougH's of the world is more info on how precisely electricity generators and nuclear folks are winning big, with Hedge Funds, while consumers are loosing. This is the argument from CitiGroup-Salomon, Deutsche Bank, Ernst & Young, etc. We need people pouring over the work of the financial planners (who are planning speculation) as opposed to folks pouring over the half-baked, rah-rah, smoke and mirrors platitudes of Stern Gang and friends.